Transition To Democracy
by
Georges Metanomski
(
Originally here∞)
A Related Policy Proposal
Shadow Parliament
Let us consider the problem of transition towards
DD in a structured form.
===============================================
1. REVOLUTION.
1.1. FOR.
Eventual arguments for Revolution could be
inserted here as paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc.
I personally do not see any.
1.2. AGAINST.
1.2.1. COST.
Recent Revolutions exterminated hundreds of millions
and ruined continents. A future Revolution may likely
exterminate billions and ruin the planet.
1.2.2. DEVIATION FROM OBJECTIVES.
None of known Revolutions achieved its declared
objectives and most achieved their contrary.
===============================================
2. EVOLUTION.
As conclusion of 1. Evolution is the desired
way. In very broad strokes it may take one of
two forms:
-Legislation determines action,
-Action determines legislation.
2.1. LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION.
This means to postpone all practical DD
procedures until respective legislation is in
place. The only possible action seems to consist
in petitions imploring such legislation.
However, Particracy will just throw such
implorations into the dust bin, as they would
on the one hand imply restriction of its power
and, on the other hand, carry no weight.
The only exception may be implementation of some
form of I&R (Initiative and Referendum). Indeed,
in crisis situations requiring extremely unpopular
measures Particracy may find it comfortable to
wash its hands and to discharge the politically
disastrous responsibility on the shoulders of
manipulated and conditioned people.
Manipulated and conditioned, because I&R is by
definition a snapshot and snapshots may easily
be conditioned by media and demagogy. DD starts
with a continuous "3F" Forum having all 3 functions
namely Initiative, Debate and Decision, with
Debate determining current consensus and
Decision occurring when consensus reaches a
value predetermined by Forum's rules.
Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be
in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
of Particracy against the true DD.
2.2. ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION.
As consequence of all above it seems the only
way left. Which form may it take? I can see only
one, the 2.2.1.Shadow Parliament presented below.
2.2.1. SHADOW PARLIAMENT.
Let us suppose, that we are a group satisfying
conditions of 2.2.1.1. below and having achieved
consensus with respect to some decision.
We will then be in position of putting enough
pressure on Particracy to make it fall in with our
request without humiliating and inefficient
implorations.
Seems fine at the first glance, but after a short
look at 2.2.1.1. Conditions we shall realize that
it is far from plain sailing.
2.2.1.1. CONDITIONS.
2.2.1.1.1. SIZE.
In order to be able to put any pressure, the
Group must count enough members. 1% of the voting
population seems to be a minimum, but of course
it is just a guess. Only practice will tell.
2.2.1.1.2. LOGISTIC.
Consensus of a Group of that size may only be
achieved with help of an adequate "3F" E-Platform.
Short experience with my CN shows that while
such Platform is feasible, adequate and efficient,
its refining and, above all, the apprenticeship
of its use will require at least a generation.
The main difficulty seems to reside not so much
in Platform's complexity, but in mental rigidity
engendered by our educational system making
people unable to understand, let alone to apply
concepts sorting of beaten paths.
Indeed, only very young and uneducated, or rather
self educated people were able to make worth while
contributions to CN.
2.2.1.1.3. SINCERITY.
It is the critical condition: members must be
capable to conceive and accept local, i.e.
personal sacrifices involved by the global
improvement. This short phrase implies a
fundamental change of mentality, replacement of
present egoism with something similar to the
attitude of Israeli Kibbutzim.
BTW I should think that each sincere protagonist
of DD should start by a stage in a Kibbutz, as
it's the only truly DD social group in the
history. (The celebrated Athenian Democracy was
in reality an Oligarchy eliminating from power
the majority: metecs and slaves.)
If Logistics requires at least a generation,
Sincerity will come still later, if ever.
2.2.1.1.4. CONCLUSION.
Three issues seem essential for starting to move
towards the DD:
1. Getting a Shadow Parliament within the Particracy.
2. Establish a logistic 3 Functions support.
3. Propound Sincerity, which appears to be the
critical condition of DD. A very limited experience
seems to point to "self applicable attitude".
An example:
A small forum discussed pollution and found out rightly
or wrongly that the worst pollution source is the
factory breeding of animals. Besides pollution it
involves unacceptable suffering of animals and mental
corruption of attendants who become potential sadistic
Auschwitz guards. The group condemned eating meat. Not
as a theoretical principle, but as a self applying
decision and all members stopped eating meat.
Another very limited and positive experience consisted
in stages in Kibbutzim, confronting fellows with the
sincerity of the unique ever realized genuine DD.
============================================
Related notes:
The necessary condition of sincerity is the New Manner
of Thinking discussed and partially defined in
RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC∞
SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT.
Motto: Einstein's assertion: "A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive."
A clear call for Enlightenment understood as people's
emergence from obscurantism imposed dogmatically by
established governance, media, education and religions.
The First Enlightenment originated in the scientific
revolution of Descartes, Galileo and Newton, and from
the involved new Reason, wherefrom the alias "Age of
Reason". This new Reason explicated in ontological
and epistemological terms by Kant and in socio-political
terms by the Encyclopedists spread the Enlightenment
over the people and led to the French Revolution from
which emerged the Particratic Oligarchy called
"Representative Democracy".
One may object that we contradict here the denial of
Revolutions (1. REVOLUTION). However, the French
Revolution betrayed in fact its Enlightenment seeds
and instead of emancipating people, changed the form of
their oppression, first in the Terror, than in the
Empires and finally in the Particracy ruling till
our own days.
Still, Particracy is less bad than the autocracy of
the Ancien Regime and, above all, the best, if not
the only step towards DD. So, even betrayed by the
Revolution, the First Enlightenment did not get
completely lost.
Our epoch appears by analogy as origin of the "Second
Enlightenment". Einstein's new edifice of science
reposes on an entirely refounded Reason supplanting
antecedent Absolute Logic with Relativistic Dialectic.
Ontological, epistemological and socio-political
explication of this Reason are still lacking, so that
the Second Enlightenment stays in the bud, in a form
that cannot be popularized and serve to free people
from oppression of the established obscurantism.
And we need it more than did the French people
oppressed by the Ancien Regime. They were confined
in slave labor and misery which was bad enough, but
our established obscurantism goes deeper and calls
into question the very survival of humanity.
That's why we endeavor to explicate Relativistic
Dialectic in ontological and epistemological terms
as a modest contribution to the Second Enlightenment
and to its socio-political outcome, the Direct
Democracy.
CategoryProjects
Backlinks:
DdModels,
GeMePolicyProposal,
GeMetanoski,
LinksIsrael
:
TransitionToDemocracy